FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2116505435> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2116505435 endingPage "AB110" @default.
• W2116505435 startingPage "AB110" @default.
• W2116505435 abstract "Background: While prior studies have evaluated the role of EUS and EGD for drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts, there are no randomized trials that have compared the technical outcomes between both modalities. Aim: Compare the rate of technical success and procedure-related complications between EUS and EGD for trans-mural drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts. Methods: Randomized trial of consecutive patients with pancreatic pseudocysts (>4cm in size) who underwent drainage by EUS or EGD over a 6-month period. CT of the abdomen was obtained prior to pseudocyst drainage in all patients. Technical success was defined as successful placement of trans-mural stents within the pseudocyst. Treatment success was defined as resolution of clinical symptoms and pseudocyst on follow-up imaging at 6-10 weeks. Complications were assessed at 24-hrs and day 30. Results: Thirty patients were randomized to undergo pseudocyst drainage by EUS (n = 15) or EGD (n = 15). Mean age of patients was 47 yrs and 62% (18/29) were men. Except for gender, there was no difference in patient/clinical characteristics between both cohorts. Of 15 patients randomized to EUS, drainage was not undertaken in 1 due to diagnosis of biliary adenoma at EUS and was excluded (post-randomization) from analysis. While all other patients (n = 14) randomized to EUS underwent successful drainage (100%), the procedure was technically successful in only 5 of 15 (33%) randomized to EGD (p < 0.001). Reasons for technical failures in 10 patients randomized to EGD were: absence of luminal compression in 9 and severe bleeding following attempted puncture of the pseudocyst in 1. All 10 patients who failed drainage at EGD underwent successful drainage on cross-over to EUS. There was no significant difference in rates of treatment success between EUS and EGD following stenting either by intention to treat analysis (100% vs. 87%; p = 0.48) or as-treated analysis (93% vs. 93%; p = 1.00). While no complications were encountered in patients who underwent drainage by EUS (0/24), major procedure-related bleeding was encountered in 2 of 6 patients (33.3%, 95% CI: 4.3 − 77.7) in whom drainage by EGD was attempted that resulted in the death of 1 patient (1/5 with technical success) and necessitated blood transfusion in another (1/10 with technical failure). Technical success was significantly higher for EUS than EGD even after adjusting for luminal compression and gender (adjusted exact OR = 39.4; p = 0.001). Conclusions: When available, EUS should be considered as the first-line treatment modality for endoscopic drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts given the high technical success rate and superior safety profile of the technology." @default.
• W2116505435 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2116505435 creator A5004945331 @default.
• W2116505435 creator A5024339450 @default.
• W2116505435 creator A5040435359 @default.
• W2116505435 creator A5045645161 @default.
• W2116505435 creator A5056852307 @default.
• W2116505435 date "2008-04-01" @default.
• W2116505435 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W2116505435 title "Prospective Randomized Trial Comparing Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS) and Gastroscopy (EGD) for Trans-Mural Drainage of Pancreatic Pseudocysts" @default.
• W2116505435 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2008.03.153" @default.
• W2116505435 hasPublicationYear "2008" @default.
• W2116505435 type Work @default.
• W2116505435 sameAs 2116505435 @default.
• W2116505435 citedByCount "2" @default.
• W2116505435 countsByYear W21165054352016 @default.
• W2116505435 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2116505435 hasAuthorship W2116505435A5004945331 @default.
• W2116505435 hasAuthorship W2116505435A5024339450 @default.
• W2116505435 hasAuthorship W2116505435A5040435359 @default.
• W2116505435 hasAuthorship W2116505435A5045645161 @default.
• W2116505435 hasAuthorship W2116505435A5056852307 @default.
• W2116505435 hasConcept C126838900 @default.
• W2116505435 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W2116505435 hasConcept C168563851 @default.
• W2116505435 hasConcept C203092338 @default.
• W2116505435 hasConcept C204243189 @default.
• W2116505435 hasConcept C2775967933 @default.
• W2116505435 hasConcept C2779763456 @default.
• W2116505435 hasConcept C2780390042 @default.
• W2116505435 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2116505435 hasConceptScore W2116505435C126838900 @default.
• W2116505435 hasConceptScore W2116505435C141071460 @default.
• W2116505435 hasConceptScore W2116505435C168563851 @default.
• W2116505435 hasConceptScore W2116505435C203092338 @default.
• W2116505435 hasConceptScore W2116505435C204243189 @default.
• W2116505435 hasConceptScore W2116505435C2775967933 @default.
• W2116505435 hasConceptScore W2116505435C2779763456 @default.
• W2116505435 hasConceptScore W2116505435C2780390042 @default.
• W2116505435 hasConceptScore W2116505435C71924100 @default.
• W2116505435 hasIssue "5" @default.
• W2116505435 hasLocation W21165054351 @default.
• W2116505435 hasOpenAccess W2116505435 @default.
• W2116505435 hasPrimaryLocation W21165054351 @default.
• W2116505435 hasRelatedWork W1533531075 @default.
• W2116505435 hasRelatedWork W1986492729 @default.
• W2116505435 hasRelatedWork W2008878688 @default.
• W2116505435 hasRelatedWork W2034253057 @default.
• W2116505435 hasRelatedWork W2049773389 @default.
• W2116505435 hasRelatedWork W207154206 @default.
• W2116505435 hasRelatedWork W2183119165 @default.
• W2116505435 hasRelatedWork W2313754675 @default.
• W2116505435 hasRelatedWork W2922321472 @default.
• W2116505435 hasRelatedWork W3144183028 @default.
• W2116505435 hasVolume "67" @default.
• W2116505435 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2116505435 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2116505435 magId "2116505435" @default.
• W2116505435 workType "article" @default.